I’d like to know how you read and interpret Deuteronomy 13, which explicitly instructs readers to kill anyone who proposes other teachings, even if they be brother, or son, or daughter, or wife or friend, and that their cities should be destroyed.
As a non-believer, should I take this seriously and prepare to defend myself from a zealot that is going to try to kill me and my family because we express our rejection of his god?
Seems to me to be the same kind of threat from militant radical Islam.

Anyone who has ever read “Mein Kampf” or Googled “quotes hitler” will immediately know what I mean.

Mary Baker Eddy was adamently opposed to any ministry.

—————————————————————————————–
Likewise, the Christian Scientist denomination of Christianity as articulated by Mary Baker Edy has done much to alleviate the burdens suffered by the poor, especially poor women, across the world. “The Christian Science Monitor” is recognized throughout the world as one of the most objective sources of news.

Thanks,

Bon

I’m curious as to where you studied Islam? Which sect? Sunni or Sufi or Shia or Wahhabi? I am particularly fond of the Sufi sect of Islam. What do you think?

I have been watching this exchange for a while now and I am growing more and more amused.

First, to assume that every facet of Islamic thought and theology is embodied in a controversial section of the charter of a Palestinian organization with ties to terrorist activity is a dangerous assumption. Similar assumptions were made by the Nazis in regards to portions of the various interpretations of the Jewish Khabbala and Torah, and those assumptions were used as one of the initial ways to justify treating Jewish Germans as a threat.

Second, there is a continuum within most major religions. At the risk of oversimplification, consider the continuum within the Christian faith to extend from conservative to liberal (similar to our modern political spectrum). The conservative group contains fundamentalists, messianic Jews, Evangelicals (though this is changing), dispensationalists, Catholics, etc. The liberal group might contain sects ranging from mainstream Protestants to Quakers and Brethren to the UCC and the UUA . One characteristics common to the conservative sects of Christianity is a literal reading of the Hebrew and Christian scripture. FDJ makes statements such as “Israel’s right to exist.” While we may agree that Israel should be a sovereign nation, FDJ would no doubt find the basis for Israel’s existence as the promise of Scripture. Other literalists like the Reverend Hagee, James Dobson, and that guy who wrote “The Late Great Planet Earth” see the existence of Israel as fundamental to the eschatological scheme outlined in the book of Revelations. Dispensationalist politicians, like the President, often take their foreign policy cues from an interpretation of Scripture that sees the descriptions of John in his “revelation” and sections of the Hebrew Scriptures as prophesy of actual events to occur at the end of time.

Many liberal Christians do not hold to this interpretation of scripture. While they believe in the divinity of Christ, they are unconvinced that the vision of a destructive God as promulgated by conservative, fundamentalist Christian sects is a valid interpretation of Christian scripture. Does this make those liberal Christians less than “Christian”? FDJ’s questions to you, Chris, seem to hint that he or she feels this way. “Are you a committed Christian?” FDJ asks. That statement reveals an underlying belief that your Christian beliefs would somehow be deficient if they were not the same as the beliefs held by FDJ. Likewise, the Christian Scientist denomination of Christianity as articulated by Mary Baker Edy has done much to alleviate the burdens suffered by the poor, especially poor women, across the world. “The Christian Science Monitor” is recognized throughout the world as one of the most objective sources of news. But, okay, some Christian Scientists do not share my views on medical care. Does this mean that Christian Scientists are less “Christian”? Hardly. Likewise, does the fact that Goodlatte is a Christian Scientist mean that he is automatically unqualified to make legislative decisions regarding health care? Please.

Islam has a continuum of adherents similar to Christianity, from liberal, moderate to conservative. The conservative camp of Islam is home to extremists, radical jihadists, etc.., just like conservative camp of Christianity is also home to terrorist groups like the Army of God.

To automatically equate Sam Rasoul with radical Islam solely because he is Muslim is the height of xenophobia, which brings me to my third and final point.

Many of Allen’s vocal supporters (Sharon Wright, Moshe/FDJ, Robin Waller, etc.) have made similar claims about Sam Rasoul. At first, I thought there were only isolated incidents of prejudice; however, this thread and the fact that it has been resurrected (excuse the pun) after so long convinces me that, for whatever reason, Janice Lee Allen seems to attract supporters who clearly have issues with people of different faiths and ethnicities. This is problematic for a number of reasons the most important of which is the fact that a Congressional representative must represent people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds.

The time has come for Janice Lee Allen to step out and disavow the statements of Moshe/FDJ, Robin Waller and Sharon Wright. She needs to make a strong statement indicating that she does not believe in these sorts of comments and that her campaign is not responsible for them. Additionally, the syntax, word choice, sentence structure and subject matter may also suggest that the above individuals are one and the same. In that case, it would be easy for Allen to disavow them and claim they are the work of a sole bad actor with an ax to grind.

This comment thread would be a great place for Ms. Allen to distance herself from such comments.

I am glad you bring up Goodlatte! How much can I share? lol

Because i am an independent, I have the liberty of addressing any party.

I wish more bible believers knew of Goodlatte’s beliefs here in the 6th District. If they did they would certainly be apprehensive in voting for him especially when we need support toward a failing healthcare system.

Again, here is another perfect example for considering the religion of a person when he or she is or may be representing us.

It is my understanding that Goodlatte has refused to support healthcare bills and this would be due to his beliefs. Being a Christian Scientist forces him to ignore the issue of healthcare because they reject sickness and death.

They prefer not to use doctors, medicine, or immunizations because sickness to a Christian Scientist is . They use what are called “Christian Science Practitioners” to help people through the false reality of illness. They do not believe sickness or death is a reality. Death is only an illusion.
Christian Scientists claim that since organic disease does not exist, “the cause of all so-called disease is mental”

Because they reject death, when Mary Baker Eddy died she was said to have had a phone placed next to her. I am serious! Her followers believed she would pick up the phone and say “this is Mary, get me out of here!” What a shocker, she remained in the grave and never made that phone call.

Of course, the difference between Christian Scientists and Muslims is the tacticts used to make converts. One is by force and the other optional.

Goodlatte also qualifies as a antimessiah according to 1 John. He denies Jesus is the Messiah.

Q: “What is (sic) your political views on Israel and Palestine? Do you believe Israel has a right to the land they possess or do you believe it was never theirs to begin with?”

A: “I believe in a peaceful two state solution. I believe economic development is the best way to attain peace by giving families a future.”

This is hardly “no answer.” Especially considering where Bob Goodlatte is on the issue, as noted in detail above. Goodlatte will say that he supports Israel and values Israel as an important American ally, but he did not bow to political pressure from AIPAC to sign a letter supported by Israel on the road to peace, he talks about negotiations that recognize the rights of both Israel and the Palestinian authority to be equal players in the peace process, and he is willing to concede that both Israelis and Palestinians have contributed to the ongoing instability in the region. Which is to say, Goodlatte is solidly in the middle on Israel, right there with Rasoul.

Continued one-sided criticisms of Rasoul on this issue would have to be considered politically-motivated in the face of this record of facts.